Contents

In Canada, summary offences are referred to as summary conviction offences.[1] As in other jurisdictions, summary conviction offences are considered less serious than indictable offences because they are punishable by shorter prison sentences and smaller fines. These offences appear both in the federal laws of Canada and in the legislation of Canada's provinces and territories. For summary conviction offences that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government (which includes all criminal law), section 787 of the Criminal Code specifies that, unless another punishment is provided for by law, the maximum penalty for a summary conviction offence is a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, a fine of $5,000 or both.

As a matter of practical effect, some common differences between summary conviction and indictable offences are provided below.

Accused must be charged with a summary conviction within 6 months after the act happened. Limitation periods are set out in the Criminal Code.

The police can arrest under summary conviction without an arrest warrant if found committing a summary offense notwithstanding s. 495(2)(c) of the Criminal Code.[2]

If the police do not find committing a summary offense, an arrest warrant is required.

Accused does not have to submit fingerprints when charged under Summary Conviction.[3]

Appeals of summary conviction offences go first to the highest trial court within the jurisdiction (e.g., provincial superior court in Alberta is the Court of Queen’s Bench).

After Provincial Superior Court a further appeal would go to the Provincial Court of Appeal (e.g., the Court of Appeal of Alberta), and then finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, but as a practical matter very few summary convictions are ever heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Accused convicted under summary conviction are eligible for a pardon after 5 years provided the accused is not convicted of any further offences during that period.

Always tried in a provincial court (cannot be joined with an indictable offence in a superior court).[4]

In relation to England and Wales, the expression "summary offence" means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is tried by a summary procedure. In such proceedings there is no jury, the appointed judge decides the guilt or innocence of the accused. Each summary offence is specified by statute which describes the (usually minor) offence and the judge to hear it. A summary procedure can result in a summary conviction.[7]

In this definition, references to the way in which an offence is triable are to be construed without regard to the effect, if any, of section 22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 ("Certain offences triable either way to be tried summarily if value involved is small") on the mode of trial in a particular case.[8]

By a summary proceeding I mean principally such as is directed by several acts of parliament (for the common law is a stranger to it, unless in the case of contempts) for the conviction of offenders, and the inflicting of certain penalties created by those acts of parliament. In these there is no intervention of a jury, but the party accused is acquitted or condemned by the suffrage of such person only, as the statute has appointed for his judge. An institution designed professedly for the greater ease of the subject, by doing him speedy justice, and by not harassing the freeholders with frequent and troublesome attendances to try every minute offence. But it has of late been so far extended, as, if a check be not timely given, to threaten the disuse of our admirable and truly English trial by jury, unless only in capital cases.

In the United States, "there are certain minor or petty offenses that may be proceeded against summarily, and without a jury".[9][10] These include criminal citations. Any crime punishable by more than six months imprisonment must have some means for a jury trial.[11] Federal law is codified at 18 U.S.C.§ 19. Some states, such as California, provide that all common law crimes and misdemeanors require a jury trial.[12][13] Some states provide that in all offenses the defendant may demand a jury trial. (Note that the right to trial by jury is the exclusive right of the defendant, if the defendant chooses to select a bench trial (trial by judge) the prosecution cannot object.)

Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, as "the requirement of a jury does not apply to 'contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States'".[14] There have been criticisms over the practice. In particular, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in a dissent, "It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury."[15]